Determinants of stillbirths in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries have high stillbirth rates compared with high-income countries, yet research on risk factors for stillbirth in SSA remain scant. OBJECTIVES: To identify the modifiable risk factors of stillbirths in SSA and investigate their strength of association using a systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Global Health and MEDLINE databases were searched for literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Observational population- and facility-level studies exploring stillbirth risk factors, published in 2013-2019 were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A narrative synthesis of data was undertaken and the potential risk factors were classified into subgroups. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included, encompassing 20 264 stillbirths. The risk factors were categorised as: maternal antepartum factors (0-4 antenatal care visits, multiple gestations, hypertension, birth interval of >3 years, history of perinatal death); socio-economic factors (maternal lower wealth index and basic education, advanced maternal age, grand multiparity of ≥5); intrapartum factors (direct obstetric complication); fetal factors (low birthweight and gestational age of <37 weeks) and health systems factors (poor quality of antenatal care, emergency referrals, ill-equipped facility). The proportion of unexplained stillbirths remained very high. No association was found between stillbirths and body mass index, diabetes, distance from the facility or HIV. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of evidence was low, as many studies were facility based and did not adjust for confounding factors. This review identified preventable risk factors for stillbirth. Focused programmatic strategies to improve antenatal care, emergency obstetric care, maternal perinatal education, referral and outreach systems, and birth attendant training should be developed. More population-based, high-quality research is needed.

Individualised decision making: interpretation of risk for extremely preterm infants-a survey of UK neonatal professionals.

BACKGROUND: The British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM) published a revised framework for perinatal management of extremely preterm infants (EPIs) in 2019. We aimed to assess UK neonatal professionals' interpretation of elements of this framework, as well as the consistency of their estimates of outcome for EPIs. METHODS: An online survey gave participants five cases involving anticipated extremely preterm birth with different favourable and unfavourable risk factors. Respondents were asked to assign a risk category and management option using the BAPM framework and to estimate the chance of survival if the baby received active resuscitation and the chance of severe disability if they survived. RESULTS: Respondents were consistent in interpretation of risk categories. The majority would follow parental wishes about management. Management decisions did not always correspond with risk assessment, with less inclination to recommend palliative (comfort) care. There were wide estimates of survival or severe disability (5%-90%) with consultants providing lower estimates of severe disability than other groups. CONCLUSION: UK neonatal professionals deferred to parental wishes in the cases presented, indicating an emphasis on shared decision making. However, they did not necessarily use the risk stratification approach for management decisions. Variation in estimates of outcome raises questions about the accuracy of informed decision making and suggests support is needed for UK clinicians to incorporate risk factors into individualised counselling. There may be value in validating existing online risk calculators for UK infants or in developing a UK specific risk model.

Viability and thresholds for treatment of extremely preterm infants: survey of UK neonatal professionals.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about treatments for extremely preterm infants (EPIs) born in the 'grey zone' of viability can be ethically complex. This 2020 survey aimed to determine views of UK neonatal staff about thresholds for treatment of EPIs given a recently revised national Framework for Practice from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. METHODS: The online survey requested participants indicate the lowest gestation at which they would be willing to offer active treatment and the highest gestation at which they would withhold active treatment of an EPI at parental request (their lower and upper thresholds). Relative risks were used to compare respondents' views based on profession and neonatal unit designation. Further questions explored respondents' conceptual understanding of viability. RESULTS: 336 respondents included 167 consultants, 127 registrars/fellows and 42 advanced neonatal nurse practitioners (ANNPs). Respondents reported a median grey zone for neonatal resuscitation between 22+1 and 24+0 weeks' gestation. Registrars/fellows were more likely to select a lower threshold at 22+0 weeks compared with consultants (Relative Risk (RR)=1.37 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.74)) and ANNPs (RR=2.68 (95% CI 1.42 to 5.06)). Those working in neonatal intensive care units compared with other units were also more likely to offer active treatment at 22+0 weeks (RR=1.86 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.94)). Most participants understood a fetus/newborn to be 'viable' if it was possible to survive, regardless of disability, with medical interventions accessible to the treating team. CONCLUSION: Compared with previous studies, we found a shift in the reported lower threshold for resuscitation in the UK, with greater acceptance of active treatment for infants <23 weeks' gestation.

Birthweight data completeness and quality in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: Low birthweight (< 2500 g) is an important marker of maternal health and is associated with neonatal mortality, long-term development and chronic diseases. Household surveys remain an important source of population-based birthweight information, notably Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and UNICEF's Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS); however, data quality concerns remain. Few studies have addressed how to close these gaps in surveys. METHODS: The EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of 69,176 women was undertaken in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites (Matlab-Bangladesh, Dabat-Ethiopia, Kintampo-Ghana, Bandim-Guinea-Bissau, IgangaMayuge-Uganda). Responses to existing DHS/MICS birthweight questions on 14,411 livebirths were analysed and estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) associated with reporting weighing, birthweight and heaping reported. Twenty-eight focus group discussions with women and interviewers explored barriers and enablers to reporting birthweight. RESULTS: Almost all women provided responses to birthweight survey questions, taking on average 0.2 min to answer. Of all babies, 62.4% were weighed at birth, 53.8% reported birthweight and 21.1% provided health cards with recorded birthweight. High levels of heterogeneity were observed between sites. Home births and neonatal deaths were less likely to be weighed at birth (home births aOR 0.03(95%CI 0.02-0.03), neonatal deaths (aOR 0.19(95%CI 0.16-0.24)), and when weighed, actual birthweight was less likely to be known (aOR 0.44(95%CI 0.33-0.58), aOR 0.30(95%CI 0.22-0.41)) compared to facility births and post-neonatal survivors. Increased levels of maternal education were associated with increases in reporting weighing and knowing birthweight. Half of recorded birthweights were heaped on multiples of 500 g. Heaping was more common in IgangaMayuge (aOR 14.91(95%CI 11.37-19.55) and Dabat (aOR 14.25(95%CI 10.13-20.3) compared to Bandim. Recalled birthweights were more heaped than those recorded by card (aOR 2.59(95%CI 2.11-3.19)). A gap analysis showed large missed opportunity between facility birth and known birthweight, especially for neonatal deaths. Qualitative data suggested that knowing their baby's weight was perceived as valuable by women in all sites, but lack of measurement and poor communication, alongside social perceptions and spiritual beliefs surrounding birthweight, impacted women's ability to report birthweight. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial data gaps remain for birthweight data in household surveys, even amongst facility births. Improving the accuracy and recording of birthweights, and better communication with women, for example using health cards, could improve survey birthweight data availability and quality.

Stillbirth maternity care measurement and associated factors in population-based surveys: EN-INDEPTH study.

BACKGROUND: Household surveys remain important sources of maternal and child health data, but until now, standard surveys such as Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) have not collected information on maternity care for women who have experienced a stillbirth. Thus, nationally representative data are lacking to inform programmes to address the millions of stillbirths which occur annually. METHODS: The EN-INDEPTH population-based survey of women of reproductive age was undertaken in five Health and Demographic Surveillance System sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda (2017-2018). All women answered a full birth history with additional questions on pregnancy losses (FBH+) or full pregnancy history (FPH). A sub-sample, including all women reporting a recent stillbirth or neonatal death, was asked additional maternity care questions. These were evaluated using descriptive measures. Associations between stillbirth and maternal socio-demographic characteristics, babies' characteristics and maternity care use were assessed using a weighted logistic regression model for women in the FBH+ group. RESULTS: A total of 15,591 women reporting a birth since 1 January 2012 answered maternity care questions. Completeness was very high (> 99%), with similar proportions of responses for both live and stillbirths. Amongst the 14,991 births in the FBH+ group, poorer wealth status, higher parity, large perceived baby size-at-birth, preterm or post-term birth, birth in a government hospital compared to other locations and vaginal birth were associated with increased risk of stillbirth after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Regarding association with reported postnatal care, women with a stillbirth were more likely to report hospital stays of > 1 day. However, women with a stillbirth were less likely to report having received a postnatal check compared to those with a live birth. CONCLUSIONS: Women who had experienced stillbirth were able to respond to questions about pregnancy and birth, and we found no reason to omit questions to these women in household surveys. Our analysis identified several potentially modifiable factors associated with stillbirth, adding to the evidence-base for policy and action in low- and middle-income contexts. Including these questions in DHS-8 would lead to increased availability of population-level data to inform action to end preventable stillbirths.

Ectogestation ethics: The implications of artificially extending gestation for viability, newborn resuscitation and abortion.

Recent animal research suggests that it may soon be possible to support the human fetus in an artificial uterine environment for part of a pregnancy. A technique of extending gestation in this way ("ectogestation") could be offered to parents of extremely premature infants (EPIs) to improve outcomes for their child. The use of artificial uteruses for ectogestation could generate ethical questions because of the technology's potential impact on the point of "viability"-loosely defined as the stage of pregnancy beyond which the fetus may survive external to the womb. Several medical decisions during the perinatal period are based on the gestation at which infants are considered viable, for example decisions about newborn resuscitation and abortion, and ectogestation has the potential to impact on these. Despite these possible implications, there is little existing evidence or analysis of how this technology would affect medical practice. In this paper, we combine empirical data with ethical analysis. We report a survey of 91 practicing Australian obstetricians and neonatologists; we aimed to assess their conceptual understanding of "viability," and what ethical consequences they envisage arising from improved survival of EPIs. We also assess what the ethical implications of extending gestation should be for newborn and obstetric care. We analyze the concept of viability and argue that while ectogestation might have implications for the permissibility of neonatal life-prolonging treatment at extremely early gestation, it should not necessarily have implications for abortion policy. We compare our ethical findings with the results of the survey.

Quality Indicators for Global Benchmarking of Localized Prostate Cancer Management.

PURPOSE: We sought to develop a core set of clinical indicators to enable international benchmarking of localized prostate cancer management using data available in the TrueNTH Global Registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international expert panel completed an online survey and participated in a face-to-face meeting. Participants included 3 urologists, 3 radiation oncologists, 2 psychologists, 1 medical oncologist, 1 nurse and 1 epidemiologist with prostate cancer expertise from a total of 7 countries. Current guidelines on prostate cancer treatment and potential quality indicators were identified from a literature review. These potential indicators were refined and developed through a modified Delphi process during which each panelist independently and repeatedly rated each indicator based on importance (satisfying the indicator demonstrated a provision of high quality care) and feasibility (the likelihood that data used to construct the indicator could be collected at a population level). The main outcome measure was items with panel agreement indicated by a disagreement index less 1, median importance 8.5 or greater and median feasibility 9 or greater. RESULTS: The expert panel endorsed 33 indicators. Seven of these 33 prostate cancer quality indicators assessed care relating to diagnosis, 7 assessed primary treatment, 1 assessed salvage treatment and 18 assessed health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a set of quality indicators to measure prostate cancer care using numerous international evidence-based clinical guidelines. These indicators will be pilot tested in the TrueNTH Global Registry. Reports comparing indicator performance will subsequently be distributed to groups at participating sites with the purpose of improving the consistency and quality of prostate cancer management on a global basis.